I read this in order to submit a book review to a journal. My mind was half blown, the other half was like, what is this (in a bad way)? I need to think on this for a while.
“Inventions of a Present” is a collection of pieces of literary criticism — some contemporary, some old, and all ever-reverential to the literary canon (Marquez, Beckett, and Foucault are some of his favorites). Some titles were interesting — borderline scared me — such as “Commodity Bulimia” and “The Businessman in Love.” His primary regions of interest appear to be: America, Latin America, the Soviet Union, Germany, Poland, a little bit of Japan (Oe) and Norway (Knausgaard). He seemed interested in the effects of globalization/the marketplace, war, religion, etc. on daily life and written forms. He also seemed obsessed with genre dissolution and ineffability (he often argues that stories are not neatly Postmodern or Jamesian — I didn’t even know this was an adjective, that’s another thing, he is deep in this literary criticism shit — or Russian or anything. Instead, he sort of creates new categorical genres… it’s all hard to follow).
Finally, my only introduction to Jameson prior was in the class Migrant Narratives, whereby his conceptions of Third World literature as allegory was responded to by a fiery critique written by Aijaz Ahmad. In this work, Jameson sort of doubles down on his “third world literature is always a national allegory” claim, since he states it twice. Towards the end of this collection of essays, he argues that first world life allows and makes possible an attempt at apolitical life — but elsewhere he sort of contradicts himself by saying the apolitical is a political choice, maybe he just meant for a novelist? — versus third world literature must necessarily be political because of political instability. Honestly, he should just concede to Ahmad.
At many moments, I found myself instinctually disagreeing with Jameson, and I think it will take some time to get all my ducks (reasons) in a row. However, the book allowed me to think critically, made me miss school, and made me wish to explore classics more, especially to understand him more since every great classical author is now being used as an adjective to describe a new author (slight shade here intended).
Another question I had was: what is the exact throughline of all these different pieces? How do they all relate to the “novel in crisis” or even “globalization”? I need to think about this more!!
Another problem that I have is similar to popular critiques of the New York Times best books of 2024 but that critique on steroids, which is, who is this stuff even for? What do people do when they want criticism but perhaps are not well versed in a world of symbols, where Faulkner is an adjective and the assumption is that we all understand philosophical positivism? I think this book did not solve the “ivy tower” dilemma, since it felt very removed from the domain of influence on anyone except a very, very niche group of scholars, which I suppose is its point, but makes me question the purpose nevertheless. I thought some essays were more readable and something more than 20 people would be interested in, such as the Knausgaard Q&A that was previously published in the London Review of Books.